I couldn't get it to come up. Did they finally apologize to Bjorn Lomborg? Cool.

(ETA - Okay, so internal inconsistencies can sometimes kill a post.)

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Hank, I thought the real measure was whether it catches fire with the public.

I'm happy to concede that this is a scandal worthy of the full resources that the NRO, the WSJ, FoxNews, TalonNews, and the WH can bring to bear in order to jail the embezzling fuckers and burn the building at 46th Street to the ground, if you'd give your thoughts on whether the continuing reporting on this subject are worthy of - oh -- say, mild concern.

• The American Civil Liberties Union today charged that the government is attempting to bury the torture scandal involving the U.S. military by failing to comply with a court order requiring release of documents to the ACLU. The documents the government does release are being issued in advance to the media in ways calculated to minimize coverage and public access, the ACLU said.
  
  The reason for the delay in delivering the more than 1,200 pages of documents was evident, the ACLU said, in the contents, which include reports of brutal beatings, "exercise until exhaustion" and sworn statements that soldiers were told to "beat the fuck out of" detainees. One file cites evidence that Military Intelligence personnel in Iraq "tortured" detainees held in their custody.
  
  "These documents provide further evidence that the torture of detainees was much more widespread than the government has acknowledged," said ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer. "At a minimum, the documents indicate a colossal failure of leadership."
  
  ***
  
  The documents -- along with more than 30,000 to date -- were released in response to a federal court order that directed the Defense Department and other government agencies to comply with a year-old request under the Freedom of Information Act filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case. The documents received to date have been posted at www.aclu.org/torturefoia.
  
  The documents released today include evidence of:
  
• Abuse of a high school student detainee: Commander's report of inquiry into broken jaw of a high-school boy (such that the boy required his mouth to be wired shut and could eat only through a straw). The victim was told "to say that I've fallen down and no one beat me." The report concluded that the broken jaw was caused either as a result of a blow by a U.S. soldier or a collapse due to "complete muscle failure" from being excessively exercised. It found that "abuse of detainees in some form or other was an acceptable practice and was demonstrated to the inexperienced infantry guards almost as guidance" by 311th Battalion Military Intelligence personnel. Personnel "were striking the detainees," and evidence suggested that the 311th Military Intelligence personnel and/or translators "engaged in physical torture of the detainees." It was recommended that no punitive action be taken against the Commander of the Battalion. (See pp. 1173-1280)
  
• Death of detainee with no history of medical problems: Abu Malik Kenami died while in detention in Mosul, Iraq. The investigation speculates that Kenami may have suffered a heart attack. On the day he died, Kenami had been "punished with ups and downs several times…and ha[d] his hands flex cuffed behind his back." He was also hooded, with "a sandbag placed over [his] head." "Ups and downs" are "a correctional technique of having a detainee stand up and then sit-down rapidly, always keeping them in constant motion." The file states that "[t]he cause of Abu Malik Kenami’s death will never be known because an autopsy was never performed on him." Kenami’s corpse was stored in a "reefer van" for five days before it was turned over to a local mortician. (See pp. 1281 - 1333)
  
• Soldiers being told to "beat the fuck out of detainees": Documents dated August 16, 2003, relating to an investigation into "alleged ROE and Geneva Convention violations" in Iraq include sworn statements relating to "Bulldog 6" telling soldiers to "take the detainee[s] out back and beat the fuck out of them." (See pp. 1584-1613)
  
• Perceptions of chain of command endorsement of "pay-back": An informal investigation into an incident of abuse by soldiers while they were dropping detainees off for further questioning by the "3BCT MIT team" in Iraq. The MIT team saw the soldiers kicking blindfolded and "zipcuffed" detainees several times in the sides while yelling profanities at them. The investigation concludes that at least three TF 2-70 did abuse the detainees and adds that "some of the TF 2-70 may perceive that the chain-of-command is endorsing ‘pay-back’ by allowing the units most affected by suspected detainee actions to play the greatest role in bringing those suspects to justice." (See pp. 1619-1755)
  
  The page numbers noted above relate to PDF documents posted online at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/rele...05/index.html.

Frankly, I've become somewhat numb to these stories. They accumulate in depressing fashion, and at this stage of the game I'm reticent to even mention them here.

On the plus side, though, we've got Karen Hughes on the job, so I'm sure this will work out fine on the PR front.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Do I sense another torture debate?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Call it what you want. It is clearly not right. Hopefully, it is also not Right.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

It would certainly be well-named.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

War sucks. War allows civilized people to do uncivilized things. Hopefully, we catch them, explain to the world that this wasn't acceptable to us, and punish appropriately (which said appropriateness includes the context of the war we sent those kids into.) But, it's war. How many dead? How much destroyed? And, how much worse would it have been for Iraqis to have SH continue in place? All important contextual issues.

It's neither right nor Right, but I can't get too het up* about it.

(PWT term of art.)

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

I agree with you to an extent. War creates an environment where certain actions by soldiers, such as looting, rape, and abuse of prisoners, are almost guaranteed to happen absent strong, organized, and effective leadership determined to prevent it from happening. As gatti noted, these actions are no longer shocking isolated incidents; they're widespread.

That they're so widespread leads me to 3 conclusions: (1) the military leadership actively supported the abuse of Iraqi prisoners; (2) the brass did not actively encourage torture, but turned a blind eye to the situation and let the sheiks fall where they may, because war sucks; or (3) the military leadership is completely incompetent.

I don't know which of the 3 it is, but all 3 readily explain the military's unjustifiable stonewalling on this issue. Whether or not you agree with the war in Iraq, our treatment of prisoners is completely inexcusable and will reflect poorly on our nation as a whole. Something stinks here. I would hope that this is enough of a nonpartisan issue that Rs and Ds could work together to get to the bottom of this, but my lack of cynicism has left me disappointed before.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

I had a law school professor who was in the Army in WWII. He was in a tank in Europe from D-Day to VE Day.

He told us a story about how, as his unit was pulling out of a town, scores of German soldiers surrendered to him. He was packing up their weapons when he saw a group of French soldiers leading a few Germans into the town. He heard a few shots, and the French soldiers came back alone. He looked at them, and the French officer looked back at him and said "S.S." and he pointed at the prisoners my prof had.

He said that he was sorely tempted to leave them to the French, but decided not to. He said that he was still unsure at the time of our discussion on the Rule in Shelley's Case ("what does this have to do with real property, Mr. Bob? Nothing! Now, then the Frog cocked his machine pistol and ...) about whether he did the right thing or not.

Battlefield incidents are one thing. Torture (fine, "mistreatment") of prisoners is another.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

My understanding is that at least part of the problem is that the troops guarding the prisoners were often times reserves that were not properly trained for that task.

I'm torn on this issue. Part of me thinks it's wrong, but the other part of me thinks that nearly anything goes in war when it comes to soldiers (not innocents), because the stakes are typically so high in war that the means justifies the ends.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

I can see your point, and agree with it to an extent, but where do you draw the line? Is it OK to kick and beat someone to get information? I can see answering yes.

Is it OK threaten a prisoner's/detainee's/whatever you what to call them's son, who is a young teenager and may also be participating in insurgency stuff, but we don't know, to get the parent to talk? Is it OK to pick up the kid and bring him in, and beat the parent (father) and tell him you are going to beat the kid the same way if he doesn't talk?

Is it OK to rape (or threaten to rape, and undress or whatever in prep for rape) the sister/daughter/wife/mother of a prisoner/detainee/whatever?

I mean, traditionally, I think when you take a town back from the enemy (whoever they are), if the town was cooperating, you have free rein to rape and loot.

ETA, obviously not all the above is directed at you b/c of your "innocents" thingy. But, I'm curious, are all of the people who are being "detained" and treated in the way that is raising questions (is that neutral enough??) people who we know were/are soldiers (actively fighting)? Or are some people we just suspect of being active in the insurgency?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

There is no way we can condone an orchestrated or tolerated campaign of misconduct against enemy soldiers, particularly outside of the battlefield arena where split-second decisions and unpremeditated actions have to be made.

Its one thing for the poor Captain to get courtmartialed for mercifully shooting Sadr's dying driver. They better not convict this guy of anything serious, particularly after today's reported testimony by the medic.

Its another thing entirely for the commanding twit at Abu Ghraib to say that she didn't really know who was in charge....

Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of this stuff was overblown. But a good deal of it isn't really being blown out of proportion. And for us to condone the murder or torture of combatants or civilians, outside of truly extraordinary circumstances, is for us to provide justification to our opponents when it is directed against us.

That is not a deal I'd ever agree to.

Again though, I'm not second guessing split second decisions made on the field. Just the stuff that's done in controlled situations.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

We have made fact judgement based upon the evidence that they are active in the insurgency. Like all your bros. have been saying all week, fact judgements have to be respected.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Gatti has a solid point here. I remember the hijackers who flew the plane into the Pentagon let the passengers call home on their cells and all. We need to provide better rights.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Do you now concede that the UN had no business making decisions re. Iraq?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

So we have due process out there? Cool. Who knew. Damn liberal media, acting like untrained soldiers are the ones making the calls.